By reading the Christensen article and creating a media presentation I was really able to get an idea of how much the media effects people, especially the younger generations. I love the quote Christensen opens up with explaining, "Our society's culture industry colonizes theirs minds and teaches them how to act, live, and dream." This quote explains how much the media influences people. Children are exposed to over 12,000 images per day. If each one catches their attention even for 2 seconds and going to build have a huge impact in their lives. Its affects how people act, dress, what they are interested in and what is the "standard". Reading further on in the reading Christensen explains this idea of the media controlling society by calling it the "secret education". "...delivered by children's books and movies, instructs young people to accept the world as it is portrayed in these social blueprints. And often that world depicts the domination of one sex, race, one class, or one country over a weaker counterpart." When I read this quote I thought of the Johnson reading and relating to the culture of power. The culture that is in power is going to get the most input in the media and will eventually be perceived as the norm.
I enjoyed reading about how the students did some independent researched and charted stereotypes in the media that they witnessed first hand. Many students noticed the difference right away and some became angered that cartoons never had a minority playing a leading role, they always played the anatgonist or servant. This is embedding negative ideas into the minds of young children. An important point that Christensen points out is, "Of course, there should also be more women of color on the Supreme Court, in Congress, and scrubbing up for surgeries. But I want students to understand that if the race of the character is the only thing changing, injustices may still remain." I think Christensen is trying to explain, that although race injustices in the media have slightly improved there are still many problems remaining. For example, the perfect models are physically underweight and stick thin. This is an issue that can relate to low self esteem and eating disorders.
There is much more to negative media portrayals than people realize. I think as future teachers, people need to be aware of these issues, so they can inform students of the problems and try to avoid it to an extent.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Teaching Boys and Girls
I found the article relating to teaching boys and girls separately to be interesting, but I do not really agree with the idea. I never realized that there significant differences in how boys and girls learn. My first disagreement with separating boys and girls is the social aspect. Like I have read about in other articles, school is not just learning about math, science, English, etc. It is also important to learn how to socialize with others. School is a place where children are prepared to interact with one another, and be prepared for higher education and the real world. If students are put into a classroom that is segregated by gender, at a young age they are never going to have the initial interaction where they learn to socialize with people of the opposite sex. I think the reason I went into reading this article with somewhat of an opinion already formed is because I have discussed the matter in other classes and personally don’t agree with it.
The first quote I found interesting is “…a mix of cultural and technological forces-ranging from the growth of brain scan research to the increased academic pressure on kindergarteners and a chronic achievement gap between richer and poorer students and between white and minority students- new single sex public schools and classrooms are opening at an accelerating pace. “ To me I found this statement to make it clear of why these single sex classrooms are becoming more and more popular. In modern day, we live in a society where getting an exceptional education is a top priority, and competition of being the best is apparent everywhere in society. These single sex schools may becoming more and more popular because parents may see higher test scores, meaning the students must be smarter.
Leonard Sax makes his argument about teaching boys and girls separately: “Leonard Sax represents the essential-difference view, arguing that boys and girls should be educated separately for reasons of biology…”. I found it interesting to read about the differences between boys and girls. For example, how girls are better with hearing and listening, whereas boys are better at watching action. I found it kind of stereotypical of how the classrooms of the boys and girls were designed. The boys room is blue and set a cool temperature, whereas the girls room is a warm yellow color and set at a higher temperature. Yes, I agree that girls and boys are biologically different, and may have stronger attributes to learning, but I do think that is a valid reason to separate them. When men and women are in the work force they are not separated by gender, they have to learn to work cooperatively together.
To counter Sax’s argument of biological differences, Jay Giedd, chief of medical imaging researched this idea further. “Differences in brain size between males and females should not be interpreted as implying any sort of functional advantage or disadvantage.” From a medical perspective this proves the point that although boys and girls are biologically different does not mean that their learning capacity differs so much that they should learn in separate classrooms.
In conclusion, this article ends with a statement from Richard Kahlenburg at Century Foundation. “…it may be hard to remember that public schools were intended not to instruct children in reading and math but also to teach them commonality, tolerance and what it means to be American. ‘When you segregate, by any means, you lose some of that,”. I 100% agree with this statement. Yes, schools are very concentrated on meeting the standards in various subjects, but education also teaches youth how to interact and socialize with one another.
The first quote I found interesting is “…a mix of cultural and technological forces-ranging from the growth of brain scan research to the increased academic pressure on kindergarteners and a chronic achievement gap between richer and poorer students and between white and minority students- new single sex public schools and classrooms are opening at an accelerating pace. “ To me I found this statement to make it clear of why these single sex classrooms are becoming more and more popular. In modern day, we live in a society where getting an exceptional education is a top priority, and competition of being the best is apparent everywhere in society. These single sex schools may becoming more and more popular because parents may see higher test scores, meaning the students must be smarter.
Leonard Sax makes his argument about teaching boys and girls separately: “Leonard Sax represents the essential-difference view, arguing that boys and girls should be educated separately for reasons of biology…”. I found it interesting to read about the differences between boys and girls. For example, how girls are better with hearing and listening, whereas boys are better at watching action. I found it kind of stereotypical of how the classrooms of the boys and girls were designed. The boys room is blue and set a cool temperature, whereas the girls room is a warm yellow color and set at a higher temperature. Yes, I agree that girls and boys are biologically different, and may have stronger attributes to learning, but I do think that is a valid reason to separate them. When men and women are in the work force they are not separated by gender, they have to learn to work cooperatively together.
To counter Sax’s argument of biological differences, Jay Giedd, chief of medical imaging researched this idea further. “Differences in brain size between males and females should not be interpreted as implying any sort of functional advantage or disadvantage.” From a medical perspective this proves the point that although boys and girls are biologically different does not mean that their learning capacity differs so much that they should learn in separate classrooms.
In conclusion, this article ends with a statement from Richard Kahlenburg at Century Foundation. “…it may be hard to remember that public schools were intended not to instruct children in reading and math but also to teach them commonality, tolerance and what it means to be American. ‘When you segregate, by any means, you lose some of that,”. I 100% agree with this statement. Yes, schools are very concentrated on meeting the standards in various subjects, but education also teaches youth how to interact and socialize with one another.
Charity vs. Change
In the classroom teachers and school leaders aim to teach students how to be successful individuals who can contribute to society. By doing service learning is a great way to incorporate analytical thinking and giving back to the community. “Service learning makes students active participants in service projects that aim to respond to the needs of the community while furthering the academic goals of students….in addition to helping those they serve, such service learning activities seek to promote students’ self-esteem, to develop higher-order thinking skills, to make use of multiple abilities, and to provide authentic learning experiences…” I think this quote is a great explanation of what service learning should consist of. While reading this article I have noticed that students are doing service learning just to fulfill their requirement rather than truly putting in time and effort.
“Much of the current discussion regarding service learning emphasizes charity, not change.” I think this quote is one of the most important in this article and brings up one of the key points of the article. The difference between charity and change is important, and students need to be aware of the difference. Many students have fallen into the trap of charity rather than change. Service learning projects have come to be a graduation requirement that students just do to fulfill. The initial idea of having service learning was to have students become aware of social problems and society and being a member trying to change this problem. There is a large difference between the charity work and trying to make a change in society. “…promoting this vision of service learning hope to move students toward participation in what Benjamin Barber refers to as a “strong democracy”. They call for a curriculum that emphasizes critical reflection about social policies and conditions…” I think quote summarizes what students should be getting out of service learning. It is not just about doing charity work just to say you did it, it is about wanting to make a change and motivating society to be aware of its social problems.
“Much of the current discussion regarding service learning emphasizes charity, not change.” I think this quote is one of the most important in this article and brings up one of the key points of the article. The difference between charity and change is important, and students need to be aware of the difference. Many students have fallen into the trap of charity rather than change. Service learning projects have come to be a graduation requirement that students just do to fulfill. The initial idea of having service learning was to have students become aware of social problems and society and being a member trying to change this problem. There is a large difference between the charity work and trying to make a change in society. “…promoting this vision of service learning hope to move students toward participation in what Benjamin Barber refers to as a “strong democracy”. They call for a curriculum that emphasizes critical reflection about social policies and conditions…” I think quote summarizes what students should be getting out of service learning. It is not just about doing charity work just to say you did it, it is about wanting to make a change and motivating society to be aware of its social problems.
Empowering Education- could not agree more with Shor's ideas (:
This has by far been my favorite reading. I could completly relate this to my own experience at West Broadway Elementary. School should not be focused completely on the curriculum. I think many teachers these days are more focused on meeting standards and following a rigid curriculum other than anything else. School is such an important aspect in a child's life, that it has to consist of more than just the subjects being taught. I agree with Shor with the idea of allowing kids to think outside the box and come up with their own questions about what their thinking.
I liked the idea of making that relationship between student and teacher. "Piaget urged a reciprical relationship between teachers and students, where respect for the teacher coexisted with cooperative and student centered pedagogy." (pg. 12). I think this quote is explaining that learning should not just be a one way street where the teacher just explainins the material and moves on to the next subject. Students and teachers should have a relationship where they both put their input into discussion and repectfully discuss their opinions and analyze the material. "In a curriculum that encourages student questioning, the teach avoids a unilateral transfer of knowledge. I also think this part of the article relates to the Johnson article because it goes against that silenced dialogue idea, allowing students to express their ideas and questions.
I believe Shor sums up how exactly politics relates to education when she explaining how students are influenced. "All forms of education are political because they can enable or inhibit the questioning habits of students, thus developing or disabling their criticical relation to knowledge, schooling and society. Education can socialize students into critical thought or into dependence on authority, that is, into autonomous habits of mind or into passive habits of following authorities, waiting to be told what do and what things mean." I think Shor is trying to explain the importance of education in the developing minds of children. The way students grow relates directly to their learning and how the classroom is ran.
A part of this essay that really stood out to me was when Shor is explaining exactly what empowering education is. "Empowering education....is a critical-democratic pedagogy for self and social change. It is a student-centered program for a multiculutral democracy in school and society." I agree with Shor's idea of students individually growing. Not every student is going to learn at the exact same pace. Furthermore, once a student is able to individually advance they are able to contribute more to society. I know from my own life experiences and from people surrounding me, those who are more educated, are the people are contribute their ideas to society and become more involved.
I also agree with the idea of full participation of students in the classroom. Especially in current generations many students are not motivated to learn or go to school. This is partly because many do not have a say in the class room. Shor explains, "...the lack of meaningful participation alienates workers, tearchers, and students. This alienation lowers their productivity in the class and on the job." I think this relates back to the idea that there has to be a mutual relationship between student and teacher. There should be participation from both sides instead of the classroom being teacher-centered.
I really enjoyed reading this article. The key points of this article that really stood out to me included the importance of participation of both students and teachers, a beneficial relationship between the class and teacher, and finally how important education is to society.
**The more people know, the more they can contribute to improving our society, and being motivated to further their learning as well.
I liked the idea of making that relationship between student and teacher. "Piaget urged a reciprical relationship between teachers and students, where respect for the teacher coexisted with cooperative and student centered pedagogy." (pg. 12). I think this quote is explaining that learning should not just be a one way street where the teacher just explainins the material and moves on to the next subject. Students and teachers should have a relationship where they both put their input into discussion and repectfully discuss their opinions and analyze the material. "In a curriculum that encourages student questioning, the teach avoids a unilateral transfer of knowledge. I also think this part of the article relates to the Johnson article because it goes against that silenced dialogue idea, allowing students to express their ideas and questions.
I believe Shor sums up how exactly politics relates to education when she explaining how students are influenced. "All forms of education are political because they can enable or inhibit the questioning habits of students, thus developing or disabling their criticical relation to knowledge, schooling and society. Education can socialize students into critical thought or into dependence on authority, that is, into autonomous habits of mind or into passive habits of following authorities, waiting to be told what do and what things mean." I think Shor is trying to explain the importance of education in the developing minds of children. The way students grow relates directly to their learning and how the classroom is ran.
A part of this essay that really stood out to me was when Shor is explaining exactly what empowering education is. "Empowering education....is a critical-democratic pedagogy for self and social change. It is a student-centered program for a multiculutral democracy in school and society." I agree with Shor's idea of students individually growing. Not every student is going to learn at the exact same pace. Furthermore, once a student is able to individually advance they are able to contribute more to society. I know from my own life experiences and from people surrounding me, those who are more educated, are the people are contribute their ideas to society and become more involved.
I also agree with the idea of full participation of students in the classroom. Especially in current generations many students are not motivated to learn or go to school. This is partly because many do not have a say in the class room. Shor explains, "...the lack of meaningful participation alienates workers, tearchers, and students. This alienation lowers their productivity in the class and on the job." I think this relates back to the idea that there has to be a mutual relationship between student and teacher. There should be participation from both sides instead of the classroom being teacher-centered.
I really enjoyed reading this article. The key points of this article that really stood out to me included the importance of participation of both students and teachers, a beneficial relationship between the class and teacher, and finally how important education is to society.
**The more people know, the more they can contribute to improving our society, and being motivated to further their learning as well.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Citizenship in School
This article really interested me because it makes the connection between the classroom and community. I have heard this idea before, but I never read into detail. The point that really caught my attention was comparing students to citizens of the community. The first quote that stood out to me was about individuals being judged in society. "Those who appear not to make use of these conditions (supposedly open to all), or who appear to lack the potential to accrue privileges, are systemically devalued as less than full citizens- charged as they are with having the difference that matter." I believe this quote explains not only how people are judged in society, but how they are separated in schools. If children don't meet a specific standards, even at a young age, they are put into a different learning envrionment. This relates back to the idea that is if an individual does not fit the norms of society they are automatically outcasted. Another great point that is brought up is discussing schooling and democracy. "Success in life reuires an ability to form relationships with other who make up the web of community." In schools we should be teaching children how to be successful in the community. A large factor of being success is being able to interact with people surrounding you. If students are divided based on learning ability it may not do them any justice in the long run.
I enjoyed reading the story about Shayne and her story about the children in the classroom performing Where The Wild Things Are. By thinking creativily Shayne was able to have each student, including Issac, that each student can contribute to the classroom community in a different way by using their strengths. By allowing the students to put on this production it allowed the students to interact with one another, use creativity and build communication skills. I think this story is one that each student going into education should read or hear about. There does not always need to be a clear cut answer on how to teach children. Children learn differently, at different paces and have different strengths.
A point that Shayne brings up about her students realtes back to the idea of community. "To value another is to recognize diversity as the norm. It establishes the equal worth of all schoolchildren, a snese that we all benefit from each other, and the fundamental right of every student to belong." (pg. 79)
I COMPLETELY agree with this quote. I don't think schools should separate children based on learning abilities, at least for the entire school day. In a communtiy everyone should be treated equally and taken into consideration, and not outcasted for being different. I believe that a classroom should be like a community. People spend large amounts of time together, interact from one another, and benefit from one another. If children with learning disabilities or anyone who is "different" is separated is not going to be a true member of the community. If a teacher takes the time to know her/his own students individually, then each student should remain in the class. I think the biggest benefits would include strong communication skills, respect for one another, acceptance and finding your own strengths.
I enjoyed reading the story about Shayne and her story about the children in the classroom performing Where The Wild Things Are. By thinking creativily Shayne was able to have each student, including Issac, that each student can contribute to the classroom community in a different way by using their strengths. By allowing the students to put on this production it allowed the students to interact with one another, use creativity and build communication skills. I think this story is one that each student going into education should read or hear about. There does not always need to be a clear cut answer on how to teach children. Children learn differently, at different paces and have different strengths.
A point that Shayne brings up about her students realtes back to the idea of community. "To value another is to recognize diversity as the norm. It establishes the equal worth of all schoolchildren, a snese that we all benefit from each other, and the fundamental right of every student to belong." (pg. 79)
I COMPLETELY agree with this quote. I don't think schools should separate children based on learning abilities, at least for the entire school day. In a communtiy everyone should be treated equally and taken into consideration, and not outcasted for being different. I believe that a classroom should be like a community. People spend large amounts of time together, interact from one another, and benefit from one another. If children with learning disabilities or anyone who is "different" is separated is not going to be a true member of the community. If a teacher takes the time to know her/his own students individually, then each student should remain in the class. I think the biggest benefits would include strong communication skills, respect for one another, acceptance and finding your own strengths.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
look at this video! Really shocked me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgvpRoAn-ro&feature=related
I thought this link is a great connection showing how different schools can be, in the SAME state and the SAME country.
I thought this link is a great connection showing how different schools can be, in the SAME state and the SAME country.
Talking Points #8
Both readings for this week I found interesting. The first was about tracking in schools. My own opinion about this matter is that is should NOT be allowed in public schools. I think that many negative effects are an outcome of tracking. If you are a "gifted" student that always exceeded the standards you may think that the idea of tracking is great, yet average students and slower learners would disagree. Students who are placed in high ability classes are rewarded with challenging problems that encourage analytical thinking and connecting it to real world issues. A low ability class has a drastic difference that teach less topics, and go less into depth. This problem occurs in all classes including math, English and science. A great point that caught my attention was on pg. 179, "Students who need more time to learn appear to get less; those who have the most difficulty learning seem to have fewer of the best teachers." My initial question after reading this statement was, shouldn't this be the exact opposite? If students need more time and more assistance learning they should have the resources to assist them, and should have more well qualified teachers in my opinion. Tracking is not a way to improve schools, instead I think it segregates students, and the belief behind that is not true. Students may be separated into different learning groups based on their learning abilities in 1st or 2nd grade, but that is not really accurate and should not determine the rest of someone's education. "Perhaps the most important and difficult task for those who would change tracking is to confront deeply held beliefs, such as the belief that accademic ability is fixed very early and is largely unchangeable for that achievement differences can be largely accounted for by differences in ability." I think Oakes sums up this point of dividing children by learning abilities is not accurate. In my opinion I don't think students should be separated based on test scores and learning abilities. They should all be in one classrooms working with one another. Instead of "improving" school systems by separating children, they should step back and go to the root of the problem- the curriculum. The curriculum and quality of teaching needs to change. "When curriculum is organized around the central themes of a subject area rather than around disconnected topics and skills, all students stand the great chnace of enhancing their intellectual development." Students should not be focused solely on the right answer, but why something is correct and how they developed that answer. We live in a country where everyone is supposed to be equal and have equal opportunity. The idea of tracking blantantly contradicts this idea of an equal education for every student.
Oakes brings up a great point at the beginning for her article. "Some link tracking to our national security and economic well-being, contending that the top students need special grooming to be leaders in science, government, and business." I believe this was a great connection to the other article I read about social class and the connection to school's curriculum. Jean Anyon did a study of schools across America that were located in different economic districts of the country. She noticed that schools located in the working class districts were very much different than "executive elite schools". I was very surprised reading through this article and how Anyon points out differences between different economic standing schools. Students of low income areas have parents that work blue collar jobs and have a family income of less than $12,000. These schools did not have numerous resources and instead of working on a more independent level, they were always told step by step instructions. No creativeness was involved and students were strictly told to follow the procedure to get the answer. The teacher did not explain why a method worked the way it did, but school work was more just copy, learn and repeat. On the complete opposite of the spectrum students of excutive elite schools had classrooms where teachers taught differently. These students are constantly being asked to analyze problems and explain their reasoning. Anyon explains their idea is, "Schoolwork helps one to achieve, to excel, to prepare for life." I noticed while reading that these students recieved much more independence during the school day to work on problems and read on their own.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)